RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

“Memo To Paul Krugman And Rep. Van Hollen…”

If you have followed my writings for a while, you know that I was a huge fan of Paul Krugman’s. His columns were insightful, based on sound economic principles and facts. But then something changed once Hillary Clinton was shoved out of the process by the DNC – he immersed himself in the Kool Aide, and started smoking that Hopium. Now, he is writing columns not on economics – which is his field, but more political punditry. Without the facts that is, apparently.

Here’s the thing. Recently, Sarah Palin put a map on her Facebook page of Democrats to target in the November election. Apparently, Krugman took exception to it in a big way, according to this article: Memo to Paul Krugman and Rep. Van Hollen: My Search Was Not in Vain.

So what did Krugman say? This:

In last Thursday’s column, Paul Krugman admitted to having fun watching “right-wingers go wild.” One of the things that apparently delighted him was this map which Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook page:

Each of the cross-hairs represents a Democrat from a conservative district who voted in favor of health reform. Immediately after highlighting the map, Krugman wrote:

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual…you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials….to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president.

Wow. Those are STRONG words. Presumably, an academician, and a writer for the NY Times would do a search, or have fact checkers do it for him, before making such a claim. One would think, anyway. Think again:

Really, Paul? I’ll search in vain?

The map appears on this page of the Democratic Leadership Committee website (dated 2004 during the Bush years). I guess we could argue over whether the DLC counts as “senior party officials” but they’re certainly as much a part of the party as Palin who, after all, currently holds no elected office.

Granted these are bulls-eyes instead of gun-sights, and the targets are states not individual congressmen. But we’re really splitting hairs at this point. This map and the language it uses (Behind enemy lines!) are, if anything, more militant than what Palin used in her Facebook posting.

But wait, there’s more!

When Palin’s map became an issue, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), rushed on MSNBC to denounce it, telling Chris Matthews:

I really think that that is crossing a line…In this particular environment I think it’s really dangerous to try and make your point in that particular way because there are people who are taking that kind of thing seriously.

You may recall that I had a video up recently of Rep. Chris Van Hollen making outrageous claims about what was in the Health Care Bill, completely denying components of it that were well documented. Evidently, that trend is continuing:

Really, Chris? So what do you think about this map?

Each one of those red targets represents a “Targeted Republican” like this one:

There’s even a helpful legend that makes it clear that’s precisely what the little red targets represent:

You’ll never guess where I found this map. That’s right, it’s on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) website. They launched the site and the map on February 23rd of this year, making it just over a month old. And yet Van Hollen was quoted by Politico just today denouncing Republicans for “pouring more and more gasoline on the flames.” Right back at you, pal.

Okay, this map was put up about a month ago, and the chairman of the committee on whose website it is doesn’t seem to know it’s there? Huh – well THAT says a lot. And none of it good, because he is either a liar or ignorant:

Rep. Van Hollen used MSNBC to claim Palin’s map was dangerous. In fact, the website of the organization he runs has a nearly identical map. Rep. Van Hollen should be asked to explain the differences between the two maps. Specifically, what makes Palin’s map “dangerous” and his map not so much?

Paul Krugman used the megaphone of the NY Times to state that Palin’s Facebook map went “far beyond politics as usual.” He further claimed, “you will search in vain for anything comparably menacing…from members of Congress.” Notice he didn’t say it was hard to find or rare. He said, in effect, that it didn’t exist. But since my search was not in vain, the Times should issue a correction noting that Krugman got it wrong.

Ummm, well, seems to me they are pretty much the same. I’m no hunter, but I don’t think there’s a whole helluva lot of difference between a bullseye and a sighting target.

How is it that two major media outlets are so lazy about facts? I admit, MSNBO has lost a ton of credibility after the 2008 Elections and onward, but still – to not even bother to fact check at ALL?? I am really surprised by Paul Krugman. I thought he was better than that. While he may have consumed copious quantities of Kool Aide, I did not expect him to make completely unfounded claims in order to ratchet up anger at someone (in this case, Sarah Palin). That is a sad state of affairs, if you ask me. Like John (the author of the article above), the NY Times has a duty to its readers to print a retraction. I hope they do. Their reputation has already been damaged by partisan reporting, and this won’t help one bit.

Is it really too much to ask to have news sources, and their pundits, base their opinions on actual facts? So it would seem…

ON A DIFFERENT NOTE: My heart goes out to our fellow citizens in the Northeast, especially Rhode Island, while they deal with record breaking rains, and devastating floods. Many of the areas hardest hit by the floods are also experiencing hard hits with unemployment. Unbelievable what is happening there…

May you all be safe, may your losses be few, may jobs increase soon, and may your lives return to normal as quickly as possible.

  • ddjk154
  • Pingback: a tale of two targets : NO QUARTER

  • Steve1

    Jackie…the foolish litle paid blogger!

  • Audacity of Hype

    I stand corrected Reverend as your correction is based on point, not typo.  You are very correct.

  • Buzzlatte

    Wow!  Thanks!  That is so cool!  I remembered the left leaning B and that it is unfinished or unconnected at the bottom, perhaps a disconnect from the name “Barack” or from reality.  It also means that the person is emotionally unavailable – how many times have people recognized that he doesn’t connect with people.  The dissected O is very weird – especially since it does look like a target or cross hairs.  

  • Breeze

    Oh, please, RRRA, NO apologies!!

    You have said it

    ALL,  SO WELL!!

    THANK YOU!!!

  • Breeze
  • Breeze

    HERE YOU GO , BUZZ, FROM

    MichelleObama’sMirror.com

    bettyann said…

    MOTUS, you poor dear. That is one UGLY bunch of people. The rat face over Pelosi’s right shoulder gives me the shivers!!

    You are in luck.

    It happens that I took up handwriting analysis as a hobby many moons ago. Girls, never trust a man who writes all in caps.

    The first thing you need to know about handwriting, is that it is brain print. And it is all common sense. Also, that there are three areas in the analysis – above the base line, on the base line, and below the base line. Above the baseline is the super ego, on the base line the ego, and below the baseline the id. As an example of what this means, have a look at the writing of a teen. They write primarily in larger letters, the writing resting on the base line, filling up the “ego” portion of the brain print. And as we all know, teens are mostly self involved.

    At first glance this signature – the signature being his public image (I have yet to see the body of his writing, say a letter written on unlined paper) – portrays an enormous super ego with the over sized caps compared to the ego, or base line. (Here the baseline is created by the brain, because the paper is unlined – more on that later) That’s the first thing you notice when you look at it – the caps are HUGE, and the letters very small by comparison: his “ego” is restrained, shrunken, yet the all important caps are overblown, a huge super ego . In other words, his signature portrays an oxymoron. His public person is by design. How can we be sure? Regard the backward leaning “B”; backward leaning letters are the brian prints of a withholding person – forward leaning writing is a giving, open type, with healthy feelings they do not feel afraid to expose. Obama’s writing flows, however – this guy is very practiced at the persona he exudes.

    I analyzed The Won’s signature a year ago, and haven’t seen it again since. The small b striking the center of the O is new. It is also VERY weird. When a line invades the center of letters, like a tongue hanging inside (75% of the time) such as in small a’s, but especially o’s, this is a liar. Think of the forked tongue hanging into the mouth, the open letters being mouths. Next, note how the two words are mashed together. No room between words, as if they are hugging into one another, and this big O desperately clinging to the small b, or body of the word “Obama”, super imposed upon it. This is a person who is unbalanced, due to the discrepancy between the super ego and the ego. He begins his “B” at the bottom of the words, under the baseline, in the id , moving upwards to form the letter: the id is the source of primitive instinct. Obama begins his name with the pen pointing at himself, then proceeds with a huge backward leaning sweep into his super ego. This guy things he is born to be a God.

    I am not good enough at this to closely analyze the b striking the heart of the O, I can only tell you that it was not there a year ago. It is strange indeed. I can tell you that his baseline faintly falls away downward, meaning into negative territory. He does not feel the positive about the signing here. It is not level with the paper, but more, it does not have an upward/ uphill slant. Uphill slanting is positive feeling. Straight lines are even, deliberate and thinking, downward slants are depressed brain prints. This signature faintly slants downward.

  • goldengrahme

    Sybilll, Krugman, to my way of thinking, said, in effect, “Yes, the death
    panels will save money; however, that did not mean he condoned them.

    He should have  immediately followed up with: “but I don’t agree with the
    politics and economic philosophy.”  However, the rest of he panel–as I
    said–were giggling and putting out one-liners, overriding sensible debate. The whole issue got lost in the crowd.  Krugman seemed uncomfortable to me.

    This happens many times on these panel discussions.  It is a free-for-all
    format and more, IMO, for entertainment than for true analysis of very
    serious issues.  Maybe Krugman will learn to be more assertive as he goes
    along.  Signs of the times…we live in a media-hamstrung society. Sigh……

  • Breeze

    OBAMA:

    11/2 WHITE

    43% ARAB

    07% BLACK

    00% AA

  • Diana L. C.

    confused American, thanks for posting.  I just haven’t figured out how to do that yet.

    It reminded me again of teaching a group of kids in our prison town, many of whom had gang banger fathers there in the prison.  One particularly nasty ninth grader would sit in his desk and keep that finger up on his cheek and sometimes on his forehead.  So one day after enduring his next attempt to disrupt the class with some idiotic stupid comment, I asked him to step into the hall with him.

    There I told him that of course I knew what he was doing with his finger and that I had decided that, knowing what it means, the next time he did it I would take out a sexual harrassment suit against him because I had lots of witnesses. 

    He stopped doing it.

  • confused American

    Look what I found — Wow a parody on Health Care Reform using  the Song  ”For What It’s Worth”

  • hot librarian

    Obama signed into law the carr
    ying of arms (concealed )into National Parks.

  • sybilll

    congruent, argh. 

  • sybilll

    “Krugman merely identified the statement and agreed.  I didn’t  
    think Paul was actually agreeing with the premise,”
    If you can parse how agreeing, yet not agreeing are not conguent, I am all ears. 

  • sybilll

    I did mean to applaud you RRRA for this great post.  I had seen a similar post, linked to a map from DCCC in 2004, so, obviously your post is much more timely.  I had a forest for the trees kind of moment.  Apologies. 

  • Buzzlatte

    Also a grapho-analyst would have a heyday with that signature.  I took the class years ago.

  • ~~JustMe~~

    LOL Doc she’s a real winner =-O

  • Buzzlatte

    So I wonder if he’ll hire more attorneys to defend the census choice?

  • oowawa

    Actually, BO’s signature uses something very like cross-hairs:

  • lorac

    Ack, when is your shift over?  Go away!

  • whoframedrudy

    I tuned Krugman out when he joined the ‘race card’ chorus:  ”the Tea Party is opposed to HCR because Obama is black.”

    I’m not an economist, so if I’m going to spend time reading an economist — or a supposed ‘expert’ in any field — it has to be someone who doesn’t lie.  I know Krugman lies about the Tea Party, so he will also lie about economics; he’s not worth reading.

    Another thing about Krugman.  I’m sure Krugman’s a very smart but dishonest man.  But is he any smarter than the Soviet economists who wrote their failed ’5-Year Plans?’  Soviet nuclear physicists and rocket scientists were just as smart as their U.S. counterparts, their musicians, writers and athletes were brilliant.  So why would their economists be idiots?  The problem wasn’t the Soviet ‘economic experts’, it was the bloated size of the 5-year plans and the dumb political ideology that drove them.

    That’s all this Obama stuff is to me, the massive ‘stimulus’ plan, the massive health care plan — just bloated ’5-Year Plans’ on paper.  Will they work any better?  Obama could crash the existing Medicare/Medicaid system that’s barely working as it is.

  • Onofre’s arm

    “For What It’s Worth” came out in ’67, three years before Kent State.

    No “mea culpas” necessary Diana, it is a good excuse to post the song! :)

  • confused American

    there are several places that have stored these videos…Since so many sites were getting white washed…You tube still has them for all the deniers if they want to watch them…

  • confused American

    Is this the one…..

  • Diana L. C.

    Mea cupla, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa—I am worrying about the state of my soul so the obots don’t have to.

    I just realized I was thinking of a different song by Crosby, Stills, Nasch & Young–the one that starts with “tin soldiers and Nixon coming.”

  • Diana L. C.

    Yep, this was written about the Kent State Massacre, which I clearly remember. 

    Many, many years later I had a young woman in one of my research writing courses ask to research what exactly happened at Kent State.  She had been raised, of course, by people from my generation and had heard that song so many times as her parents played their “records.” (Remember them?)  I agreed to let her do the research if she researched original sources from the newspapers and journal articles of the time as well as sources written later about the event.

    She did a great job.  We do have many wise young people out there.

  • Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

    Great comment, Patience.  You had me LOL abt the op-ed pages.  I used to read the NY Times religiously myself.  Not any longer, that’s got sure.

    That’s the thing – people don’t have to like Palin to appreciate what she has accomplished in her life.  This “politics of personal destruction” thing just seems not only beyond the pale, but REALLY immature and juvenile.  We don’t all have to agree, but that does not mean we need to try and destroy the other person to make ourselves feel superior. 

    And so much stuff abt her are the very things we feminists have been saying were GOOD things.  She stood up for herself, she fought the Old Boys Club, and WON.  She and her husband have a partnership of equals.  She is both a mother, and has a job outside the home (not that there is ANYTHING wrong with women who work in the home, and being a homemaker is most DEFINITELY work).  She is athletic and played sports in school.  She worked hard, and held one of only fifty jobs in the entire US.   But far too many Dem women demonize her why?  Because she has it all?  Because she’s a hunter?  Because of her politics?  I didn’t know that when I was fighting for woen’s equality and rights (an ongoing battle) that it meant we all had to walk in lockstep together.  I thought the point was for women to be self actualized, however that looked for them, you know?

    Anyway – great comment, Patience.  Sorry for the diatribe!  :)

  • Diana L. C.

    Actually, as usual, there WERE videos of these events.  We watched many of them here on NQ during the primary.  We didn’t see them anywhere else because the sycophant MSM didn’t “choose” to show them.